In the aftermath of the tragic death of National Guard member Sarah Beckstrom, it is disheartening yet unsurprising to witness the left’s predictable narrative unraveling. This time, the blame narrative is as misguided as it is audacious. Instead of focusing on the heinous act of violence that took Beckstrom’s life, critics are quick to deflect blame onto the policies that stationed her in Washington, D.C. It’s a classic deflection to avoid confronting the harsh realities of crime—a mindset that pervades certain corners of progressive thought.
The argument put forth by some left-leaning commentators is both shallow and irresponsible. They suggest that if the National Guard wasn’t present in the federal district, then this tragedy would have been averted, completely ignoring the fact that Washington, D.C., as a federal district, has every right to beef up its security. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the jurisdictional and security needs of our nation’s capital. When did the uniform of those sworn to protect and serve become a provocation rather than a symbol of safety and order?
What’s more alarming is the subtle undertone in these critiques that seems to rationalize, if not outright excuse, acts of violence against our service members because of their deployment. It’s an unsettling departure from societal norms that dictate that disagreements, however passionate, do not justify acts of violence. There’s a disturbing parallel drawn between this mindset and the way some radicals perceive law enforcement.
Amidst this discourse, the shooter’s motivations become almost secondary, an exercise in empathy for a criminal rather than condemnation of the crime. While acknowledging the unfortunate reality of radicalization or mental instability in this awful event, it is crucial to place the blame precisely where it belongs: on the perpetrator. These progressive commentators go to great lengths to dissect the shooter’s path from immigration to radicalization, as if these are mitigating factors rather than evidence of a tragically broken system.
Furthermore, it’s time to address the broader implications of our immigration and refugee policies. Vetting processes, particularly when dealing with individuals from unstable regions, must be stringent and comprehensive. Yet, it is absurd to blame this tragedy on anything other than the shooter’s actions, especially considering the challenges of adequately monitoring individuals from countries with sparse records or widespread instability. It is a difficult but necessary conversation about who is allowed entry into this country and what measures are in place to ensure security.
One must also question the role of organizations tasked with overseeing individuals like the shooter. When non-governmental groups fail to communicate potential threats effectively, the result can be catastrophic. While empathy remains an essential part of immigration policy, it should never come at the expense of national security. Prioritizing stricter screening processes and clear communication could prevent future tragedies, ensuring safety without succumbing to the blame game. The priority should always be the security and safety of the American people, ensuring that incidents like this become a thing of the past.
